17 

REMARKS  OF 

HOITST.  LYMAN  TEUMBIJLL, 

A  REPUBLICAN  SENATOR  FROM  ILLINOIS.  ' 

— 1 11  *  ■  ■  ■  ■  - - ■■  —  — • 

The  Senate  on  the  19th  day  of  December,  1871,  had  under  consideration  the  following 
resolution,  submitted  by  Mr.  Anthony  : 

Resolved,  That  the  CommMee  of  Investigation  and  Retrenchment  be  composed  of  the  following 
Senators:  Mr.  Buckingham,  (chairman,)  Mr.  Pratt,  Mr.  Howe,  Mr.  Harlan,  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr. 
Pool,  Mr.  Bayard,  and  Mr.  Casserly.  « 

Mr.  Trumbull  had  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by- adding  thereto  the  following: 

And  that  said  Committee  of  Investigation  and  Retrenchment  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the 
expenditures  in  all  branches  of  the  service  of  the  United  States,  and  to  report  whether  any  and 
what  offices  ought  to  be  abolished;  whether  any  and  what  salaries  or  allowances  ought  to  be 
reduced  ;  what  are  the  methods  of  procuring  accountability  in  public  officers  or  agents  in  the 
care  and  disbursement  of  public  moneys ;  whether  moneys  have  been  paid  out  illegally ;  whether 
any  officers,  or  agents,  or  other  persons  have  been,  or  are,  employed  in  the  public  service  without 
authority  of  law  or  unnecessarily;  ar.d  generally  how,  and  to  what  extent,  the  expenses  of  the 
service  of  '.he  country  may  and  ought  to  be  curtailed. 

And  also  to  consider  the  expediency  of  so  amending  the  laws  under  which  appointments  to  the 
public  service  are  now  made  as  to  provide  for  withdrawing  the  public  service  from  being  used  as 
an  instrument  of  political  or  party  patronage. 

That  said  committee  be  authorized  to  sit  during  the  recess  of  Congress,  to  send  for  persons  and 
papers,  and  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise;  and  that  said  committee  may  appoint  a  clerk. 

The  pending  question  was,  upon  agreeing  to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Anthony,  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Trumbull  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word  “curtailed,” 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  Mr.  President,  I  feel  like  congratulating  some  Senators  on  the  progress 
they  have  made  within  the  last  week.  The  resolution  which  I  had  the  honor  of  offering  at 
that  timewas  denounced  by  them  as  monstrous,  and  spoken  of  with  amazement.  To-day  it 
is  talked  of  as  very  harmless,  and  not  amounting  to  anything;  it  is  said  it.  would  not 
authorize  an*investigation  of  fraud  or  of  anything  else;  it  does  not  go  far  enough.  It  is 
exceedingly  gratifying  to  find  that  Senators  have  made  such  progress  in  favor  of  investi¬ 
gation.  What  new  lights  have  shone  upon  them  I  am  unable  to  say,  but  certainly  some 
light,  either  from  above  or  from  the  sovereign  people,  somehow  or  other  seems  to  have  pene¬ 
trated  the  minds  cf  certain  Senators  so  that  they  discover  now  that  that  which  was  denounced 
by  the  Senator  from  Michigan  [Mr.  Chandler]  as  a  proposition  to  create  a  committee  pos¬ 
sessed  of  all  knowledge  is  now  very  proper.  I  believe  he  went  on  to  say  that  the  Almighty 
did  not  make  any  such  men  any  more ;  at  any  rate,  if  he  did  make  such  men,  forgetting 
that  he  himself  was  still  in  the  Senate,  he  said  they  were  not  sent  here.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  it  is  pleasant  and  agreeable  to  find  how  the  views  of  Senators  have  changed,  and  I 
am  gratified  at  the  discovery  that  has  been  made  by  the  Senator  from  Indiana,  [Mr.  Morton,] 
who  seems  to  have  received  peculiar  light  upon  this  subject,  and  he  has  discoverad  that  the 
resolution  amounts  to  very  little.  He  has  discovered  that  an  inquiry  into  the  “met hods  of 
procuring  accountability  in  public  officers  or  agents  in  the  care  and  disbursements  of  public 
moneys,”  “and  to  what  extent  the  expenses  of  the  service  of  the  country  may  and  ought  to 
be  curtailed,”  does  not  authorize  an  examination  of  fraud.  The  word  “  fraud  ”  seems  to 
haunt  him. 

Now,  suppose  you  call  it  “  an  abuse  ”  instead  of  “  a  fraud.”  I  suppose  the  resolution 
would  authorize  investigation  into  abuses;  and  if  it  should  turn  out,  when  the  committee 
makes  an  investigation,  that  agents  and  officers  having  the  care  and  disbursement  of  public 
money  have  been  using  it  improperly,  if  some  agent  or  officer  in  the  custom-house  at  New 
York  has  been  paying  out  public  money  for  the  purpose  of  hiring  delegates  to  go  up  to  the 
Syracuse  convention,  I  do  not  suppose  the  Senator  from  Indiana  would  call  that  fraud!  Bat 
if  a  trustee  having  charge  of  his  money  were  to  use  it  in  that  way  for  improper  purposes,  to 
convert  it  to  a  use  for  which  it  was  not  placed  in  his  hands,  Very  likely  he  would  consider 
that  a  fraud.  I  think  the  resolution  is  very  broad  and  covers  a  great  deal  of  ground,  and 
was  so  intended  originally.  The  motion  now  pending  is  to  strike  out  from  the  instructions 
proposed  to  be  given  the  committee  these  words:  • 

And  also  to  consider  the  expediency  of  so  amending  the  laws  under  which  appointments  to  the 
public  service  are  now  made  as  to  provide  for  withdrawing  the  public  service  from  being  used  as 
an  instrument  of  political  or  party  patronage. 

It  i3  said  that  is  the  civil  service  reform  proposition,  and  that  that  is  covered  by  a  law  of 
Congress.  The  law  of  Congress  has  nothing  in  the  world  to  do  with  it,  Mr.  President.  The 


% 


18 


act  passed  March  3,  1871.  authorized  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  prescribe  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  admission  of  persons  into  the  civil  service.  That  is  alb 

Mr.  MORTON".  That  is  not  all. 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  Well,  I  will  read  it;  the  President  is  by  it— 

“  Authorized  to  prescribe  such  rules  and  regulations  for  the  admission  of  persons  into  the  civil 
service  of  the  United  States  as  will  best  promote  the  efficiency  thereof,  and  ascertain  the  fitness 
of  each  candidate  in  respect  to  age,  health,  character,  knowledge,  and  ability  for  the  branch  of 
service  into  which  he  seeks  to  enter.” 

And  for  that  purpose  he  is  “  authorized  to  employ  suitab’e  persons  to  conduct  said  in¬ 
quiries.”  What  inquiries?  The  inquiries  as  to  providing  some  way  to  ascertain  the  fitness 
of  persons  who  appiy  for  office,  to  prescribe  the  duties  of  the  commissioners,  “  and  to  estab¬ 
lish  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  persons  who  may  receive  appointments  in  the  civil  ser¬ 
vice.”  He  is  to  appoint  this  commission  to  help  him  in  regard  to  ascertaining  who  ought  to 
be  appointed  to  the  civil  service,  by  prescribing  rules  to  ascertain  their  qualifications,  &e. 
What  has  that  to  do  with  assessments  upon  the  officers  of  the  Government  here  in  the  De¬ 
partments,  and  throughout  the  country,  for  political  purposes?  What  has  that  to  do  with 
the  cases  which  were  testified  to  in  the  report  wiiich  is  on  our  tablq  and  to  which  attention 
has  been  called,  where  officers  in  the  custom-house  in  New  York  were  assessed  a  certai  5 
amount  of  money  for  political  purposes?  'What  has  that  to  do  with  such  a  case  as  I  wili 
read  to  .show  the  Senator  from  Indiana  what  the  condi  ion  of  the  public  service  in  some  casea 
is  and  has  been  ?  Mr.  R.  M.  Kelly — [hope  the  Senator  from  Indiana  will  listen  to  this, 
because  this  is  under  that  civil  service  system  which  he  think)  is  the  best  on  earth  I — Mr.  R. 
M.  Kelly  was  collector  of  internal  revenue  in  the  seventh  district  of  Kentucky.  Mr.  A.  L, 
Thompson  was  a  United  States  storekeeper  in  the  same  distri ;  ,  and  on  the  IStn  day  of  Feb¬ 
ruary,  1870,  Mr.  Kelly,  collector,  writes  to  Mr.  Thompson  as  foil  >wa;  I  will  read  the  whole 
of  this  letter: 

United  States  Internal  Revenue,  Collector’s  Office, 

Seventh  District  Kentucky.  Lexington,  February  18,.  1870. 

Inclosed  please  find  check  for  $33  36  and  receipt  of  Louisville  Commercial  for  thirty7-  dollars, 
amount  assessed  against  you  and  deducted  from  your  pay  account  on  the  recommendation  of  Wil¬ 
lard  Davis,  esq.,  member  of  Republican  State  Executive  Committee  from  seventh  district  of  Ken¬ 
tucky.  Address  Publisher  Louisville  Commercial,  Louisville,  Kentucky,”  for  your  papers. 

It.  M.  KELLY, 

Collector  Seventh  District  Kch‘ uclzy. 

A.  L.  Thompson,  United  States  Storekeeper.  • 

That  is  an  official  letter  from  the  collector  written  to  a  subordinate  storekeeper  officially 
designated  as  a  storekeeper,  telling  him  that  on  the  recommendation  *<>f  a  member  of  the 
Republican  committee  of  the  seventh  congressional  district  of  Kentucky  he  had  taken  thi 1  by 
dollars  out  of  $63  86  that  was  coming  to  him  for  the  purpose  of  p-iying  for  p  ipers.  I  under¬ 
stand  this  Mr.  Kelly  was  about  to  establish  a  newspaper.  Tais  is  a  sum  he  of  one  of  the 
abuses  that  ought  to  be  corrected. 

Mr.  MORTON.  I  wish  to  ask  the  Senator  one  question.  I  want  to  ask  him  if  thV  thing 
that  he  refers  to  was  not  a  violation  of  existing  law  ?  The  co’Iector  had  no  right  to  reserve 
that  money.  And  can  the  Senator  make  it  any  more  a  violation  of  the  law  tftan  it  was  at 
that  time?  Had  not  the  man  a  right  to  keep  his  money  ? 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  It  is  no  use  to  try  to  cover  up  these  things  by  saying  they  are  violations 
of  law.  Does  not  the  Senate  understand  it,  and  does  rot  the  Senator  <rom  Indiana  under¬ 
stand  it,  and  does  he  not  know  that  if  that  storekeeper,  Mr.  Thompson,  had  not  submitted  to 
it  he  would  have  been  turned  out  of  office?  How  long  does  he  suppose  the  men  that  refused 
to  oay  their  assessments  in  the  custom-house  at  New  York  would  have  retained  their  offices? 

Is  it  this  system  that  the  Senator  from  Indiana  commends  as  the  best  in  the  world  ?  Why, 
sir,  is  not  the  Interior  Department  full  of  it?  Did  not  the  former  Secretary  expose  it?  I 
have  known  of  officers,  postmasters,  and  other  officers,  receiving  letters  from  some  political 
committee  telling  them  that  they  had  been  assessed  a  certain  amount  or  per  cent,  on  their 
salaries  for  party  purposes.  Officials  have  told  me  they  disliked  to  1  use  their  places,  and 
supposed  they  had  better  pay  their  assessments  than  have  difficulty  about  it  1  have  known 
hundreds  of  dollars  to  be  assessed  against  officials  in  this  way;  and  what  next?  Then  the 
officers,  part  of  whose  salaries  are  taken  to  pay  political  assessments,  come  to  Congress  and 
ask  us  to  raise  their  salaries.  Not  a  session  passes  that  applications  are  not  made  here  to 
raise  the  salaries  of  your  clerks,  your  auditors,  and  other  officials  in  your  Departments.  Why 
are  you  asked  to  raise  their  salaries  Because  they  have  to  take  a  part  of  them  to  pay  the 
assessments  of  some  party  committee.  What  is  this  but  tak  ng  the  people’s  money  to  sup 
port  a  party?  The  Semvor  from  Indiana  wants  to  know  if  such  practices  are  not  contrary  *  > 
law?  That  is  what  I  want,  the  committee  to  ascertain,  and,  whether  contrary  to  law  or  r  t, 
to  take  measures  to  have  then  corrected.  To  apply  a  remeiy  we  must  know  of  the  a)  .se. 
Did  the  Senator  from  Indiana  know  of  Thompson’s  case? 

Mr.  MORTON.  The  Senator  from  Illinois  knew  about  it.  Ibdoes  not  require  a  con  .ittee. 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  The  facts  of  that  c '.se  have  come  into  my  possession  since  tb’.  debate 


% 


f 


/ 


o  <•  ?  s  n  ^  o 


19 

began.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Wilson]  asks  to  look  at  the  letter,  as  if  he  was 
a  little  surprised  at  it.  Is  this  the  first  he  has  heard  of  this  practice?  Well,  he  never  heard 
of  that  case,  but  he  must  have  heard  of  a  great  many  others,  if  he  has  read  the  report  of 
the  former  Retrenchment  Committee.  Why,  sir,  I  have  been'  told  that  the  question  has  been 
asked  in  the  New  York  custom-house  as  to  the  political  influence  a  man  could  have,  if  he 
was  appointed,  in  securing  a  delegate  to  some  convention.  Now  it  i3  proposed  to  strike  out 
from  this  resolution  any  inquiry  in  regard  to  this  matter.  If  it  would  not  take  up  too  much 
time,  I  have  got  another  letter  here  that  I  might  read. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  what  is  proposed  to  be  done?  This  resolution  authorizes  what  sort 
of  inquiries?  It  authorizes  this  committee  ‘Ho  inquire  into  the  expenditures  in  all  branches 
of  the  service  of  the  United  States.”  The  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  is  willing  that  they 
shall  make  that  inquiry.  “And  to  report  whether  any  and  what  offices  ought  to  be  abol¬ 
ished.”  He  is  willing  that  that  inquiry  shall  be  made.  He  agrees  that  the  committee  shall 
inquire  “  whether  any  and  what  salaries  or  allowances  ought  to  be  educed.”  He  agrees 
that  they  may  inquire  “what  are  the  methods  of  procuring  accountability  in  public  officers 
or  agents  in  the  care  and  disbursements  of  public  moneys,  and  whether  moneys  have  been 
paid  out  illegally.”  He  agrees  that  they  may  inquire  “  whether  any  officers,  or  agents,  or 
other  persons,  have  been  or  are  employed  in  the  public  service  without  authority  of  law  or 
unnecessarily.”  He  agrees  that  they  may  inquire  “  generally  how  and  to  what  extent  the 
expenses  of  the  service  of  the  country  may  and  ought  to  be  curtailed.” 

But  when  you  come  to  touch  this  sore  about  the  use  of  the  offices  for  partiean  purposes- — 
and  I  wish  they  were  never  used  for  worse  than  oven  partisan  purposes ;  but  unfortunately 
they  are  frequently  used  for  personal  and  individual  purposes — when  you  come  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  “withdrawing  the  public  service  from  being  used  as  an  instrument  of 
political  or  party  patronage,”  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  rises  and  moves  to  strike  that 
clause  out  of  the  resolution.  He  does  not  wish  the  committee  to  inquire  into  that  matter. 

Mr.  ANTHONY.  I  am  in  favor  of  that  investigation  more  than  anything  that  precedes  it, 
and  I  voted  to  refer  that  matter  to  the  committee  of  which  the  Senator  from  Illinois  is  the 
chairman.  That  whole  subject  embraced  in  the  bill  introduced  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont 
£Mr.  Edmunds]  is  now  before  the  committee  of  which  the  Senator  is  chairman,  and  he  now 
comes  forward  and  asks  us  to  refer  to  a  new  committee  not  yet  appointed  a  matter  which  is 
in  his  own  hands.  Is  he  unwilling  to  investigate  it  himself?  I  would  vote  to  gi^e  him 
power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  employ  as  many  clerks  as  he  wants  for  that 
investigation.  Do  we  want  to  refer  the  same  subject  to  two  committees?  I  am  satisfied 
with  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  I  think  he  might  be. 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  Mr.  President,  let  us  understand  each  other.  The  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  are  investigating  and  are  au'horized  to  investigate  no  inquiry  into  the  manner  in 
which  offices  are  being  used  for  political  or  party  purposes.  I  will  tell  you  what  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  the  Judiciary  has  had  referred  to  it.  The  original  resolution,  which  I  offered, 
contained  this  elause : 

And  also  to  consider  the  expediency  of  so  amending  the  laws  under  which  appointments  to  the 
civil  service  are  now  made  as  to  provide  for  the  selection  of  subordinate  officers  after  due  exami¬ 
nation  by  proper  boards;  their  continuance  in  office  during  specified  terms,  unless  dismissed  upon 
charges  preferred  and  sustained  before  tribunals  designated  for  that  purpose. 

That  was  in  the  original  resolution  but  is  omitted  in  this,  and  that  is  the  subject  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary — a  bill  to  provide  for  examinations  and  in  reference  to 
appointments  to  office;  not  a  proposition  to  know  whether  the  patronage  of  this  country  is 
not  used  for  political  or  party  purposes. 

Mr.  ANTHONY.  The  whole  of  that  subject  is  embraced  in  the  bill  introduced  by  the 
Senator  from  Vermont,  which  is  now  before  the  committee  of  which  the  Senator  from  Illi¬ 
nois  is  chairman;  and  that  portion  which  he  objects  to  having  stricken  out  is  the  very  gist 
and  animus  of  the  whole  bill. 

Mr.  MORTON.  It  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  will  allow  me,  I  will  say  to  him  that 
the  bill  which  was  passed  at  the  last  session,  under  which  the  President  has  been  acting,  was 
understood  to  and  does  cover  the  whole  question,  and  what  the  Senator  from  Illinois  is  urging 
now  has  been  urged  by  him  prominently  from  the  first  as  a  measure  of  civil  service  reform. 
Now,  the  Senator  wants  to  say  that  that  has  not  been  referred  to  the  President  and  is  not 
comprehended  under  his  powers. 

Mr.  ANTHONY.  And  I  hope  the  Senator  from  Illinois  will  not  forget  that  when  he 
offered  that  amendment  I  co  operated  with  him  actively  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  I  am  much  obliged  to  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  for  having  done 
eo.  I  thank  him  for  it.  He  did  co  operate  with  me.  *  But  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  this 
proposition,  and  the  Senator  from  Indiana  cannot  escape  from  his  position  of  opposition  to 
this  inquiry  under  any  statute  that  has  been  passed.  I  will  read  the  act  again,  and  I  will 
hold  up  the  statute  before  the  thinking,  reading,  intelligent  people  of  this  country,  and  I 
will  ask  them  if  there  is  one  word  in  it  on  the  subject  of  providing  for  withdrawing  the 
public  service  from  being  used  as  an  instrument  of  political  or  party  patronage.  I  say  there 


20 


is  not.  I  say  that  the  proposition  which  was  adopted  in  the  Senate  by  the  aid  of  the  Senator 
from  Rhode  Island — I  do  not  know  that  we  had  the  aid  of  the  Senator  from  Indiana — was 
in  reference  to  appointments  to  office,  not  in  reference  to  the  use  of  the  offices  afterward  for 
political  and  partisan  purposes.  Now  I  will  read  the  whole  of  the  act  again,  because  I  am 
not  going,  if  I  can  prevent  it,  to  permit  the  Senator  from  Indiana  by  constant  asseveration 
'  to  mislead  the  people  as  to  what  that  article  is: 

“  Sec.  9.  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  authorized  to  prescribe 
such  rules  and  regulations  for  the  admission  of  persons  into  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States 
as  will  best  promote  the  efficiency  thereof,  and  ascertain  the  fitness  of  each  in  respect  to  age, 
health,  character,  knowledge,  and  ability,  for  the  branch  of  service  into  which  he  seeks  to  enterP’ 

That  is  all  that  the  President  is  authorized  t  >  do  as  to  appointments  or  appointees  under 
that  act. 

“  And  for  this  purpose  the  President  is  authorized  to  employ  suitable  persons  to  conduct  said 
inquiries,  to  prescribe  their  duties,  and  to  establish  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  persons  who 
may  receive  appointments  in  the  civil  service.” 

He  is  authorized  to  call  persons  to  his  assistance  in  framing  rules  in  regard  to  the  entry  of 
persons  into  the  civil  service. 

Now,  Mr.  President,!  think  I  have  shown  that  this  ia  not  a  matter  that  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary  are  investigating  at  all.  A  bill  is  before  that  committee  in  regard  to  the  civil 
service,  but  they  are  not  g  >ing  to  examine  how  the  public  patronage  is  being  used,  which  is 
the  clause  that  is  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  of  this  resolution. 

Now  I  propose  briefly  to  give  a  narrative,  which  I  think  ought  to  go  to  the  country,  and 
ought  to  be  understood  by  the  Senate,  of  this  resolution  and  of  the  course  which  has  been 
pursued  here  in  regard  to  it  In  July,  1866,  a  proposition  was  made  in  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives  to  raise  a  joint  Committee  on  Retrenchment,  That  resolution  came  to  the  Senate 
and  was  acted  upon  in  this  body  on  the  13th  of  July,  1866.  The  Senator  from  Vermont, 
[Mr.  Edmunds,]  from  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  of  which  the  Senator  from  Michigan  [Mr. 
Chandler]  is  chairman,  and  who  it  will  be  remembered  has  taken  such  high  ground  against 
this  committee,  that  committee  having  considered  the  resolution,  reported  it  back  to  the 
Senate?  It  wa3  not  then  as  full  as  it  is  now.  It  provided  for  inquiring  into  the  civil  service 
of  the  country.  The  Senator  from  Ohio,  [  Ir.  Sherman,]  whom  I  do  not  now  see  in  his  seat, 
and  who  has  also  been  “amazed”  that  I  should  have  offered  this  resolution  in  the  Senate, 
moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by  striking  out  the  word  “civil  ”  before  “service”  wherever 
it  occurred,  so  that  the  inquiry  might  apply  to  all  services.  That  amendment  was  agreed  to. 
The  Senator  from  Vermont  then  moved  to  amend  it  further.  He  said: 

“  I  move  to  amend  the  resolution  by  inserting  after  the  word  e  reduced  ’  in  the  seventh  line  the 
words,  1  what  are  the  methods  of  scouring  accountability  in  public  officers  or  agents  in  the  care 
and  disbursement  of  public  moneys,  whether  moneys  have  been  paid  out  illegally,  and  whether 
any  officers,  or  agents,  or  other  persons,  have  been  or  are  engaged  in  the  service  without  authority 
of  law  or  unnecessarily.’ 

“The  amendment  was  agreed  to.” 

And  then  my  good  friend  from  Rhode  Island,  [Mr.  Anthony,]  who  now  wants  to  strike  a 
particular  clause  out  of  the  resoluti  >n,  offered  this  amendment: 

“  And  also  to  consider  the  expediency  of  so  amending  the  laws  under  which  appointments  to  the 
civil  service  are  now  made  as  to  provide  for  the  selection  of  subordinate  officers  after  due  exami¬ 
nation  by  proper  boards,  their  continuance  in  office  during  specified  terms,  unless  dismissed  upon 
charges  preferred  and  sustained  before  tribunals  designated  for  that  purpose,  and  for  withdraw¬ 
ing  the  civil  service  from  being  used  as  an  instrument  of  political  or  party  patronage.” 

That  amendment,  after  being  very  highly  commended  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont,  was 
also  adopted  by  the  Senate  and  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  not  satisfied  that  that  was 
broad  enough,  also  asked  to  strike  out  the  word  “  civil,”  so  as  to  have  the  provision  apply 
to  all  services. 

Mr  EDMUND 8.  Had  not  that,  already  been  done  on  the  motion  of  the  Senator  from  Ohio? 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  In  hi3  amendment  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  had  inserted  the 
word  “  civil,”  and  he  asked  to  strike  it  out  of  his  own  amendment.'  After  this  resolution  had 
undergone  these  various  amendments  it  was  submitted  to  the  Senate  in  the  very  same  words 
in  which  I  ofFered  it  here  on  the  7th  day  of  December. 

The  resolution  was  again  adopted  on  the  6th  of  March,  1867,  in  these  words: 

“  Mr.  Anthony  submitted  the  following  concurrent  resolution,  which  was  considered  by 
unanimous  consent,  and  agreed  to  : 

liesolved  by  the  Senate,  (the  House  of  Representatives  concurring,)  That  the  joint  select  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Retrenchment,  raised  by  a  concurrent  resolution  of  the  two  Houses  at  the  first  session 
of  the  Thirty-Ninth  Congress,  be.  and  the  same  is  hereby,  revived  and  continued  for  and  during 
t *13  Fortieth  Congress,  with  all  and  the  same  powers  and  duties  appertaining  thereto  ia  said 
Thirty-Ninth  Congress,  and  with  power  to  appoint  a  clerk,  and  with  power  in  its  members  to 
administer  oaths  ;  and  that  any  vacancies  in  said  commmitte  be  filled  by  the  Presiding  Officer  of 
eich  House  respectively.” 


21 

The  Senator  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Sherman,]  who  was  so  “amazed”  at  this  resolution  the 
other  day,  on  the  16th  of  March,  1867,  offered  the  following  resolution: 

“  Resolved  by  the  Senate,  ( the  House  of  Representatives  concurring,)  That  the  joint  Committee 
on  Retrenchment,  be,  and  are  hereby,  iustructed  to  make  a  careful  and  minute  examination  of  the 
method  adopted  by  the  Treasury  Department  to  print  the  bonds,  notes,  and  securities  of  the 
United  States;  what  guards  have  been  adopted  to  prevent  fraud  or  mistake,  and  what  additional 
guards,  if  any,  ought  to  be  adopted  to  prevent  fraud  or  mistake;  whether  there  has  been  any 
fraudulent  or  erroneous  issue  of  bonds,  notes,  or  coupons,  and  if  so,  by  whose  fault  or  negligence, 
and  the  proper  remedy  and  prevention  thereof ;  and  especially  to  examine  the  official  conduct 
of  those  charged  with  the  printing,  registration,  and  issuing  "of  any  notes,  bonds,  or  securities 
of  the  United  States ;  and  that  said  committee  have  power  to  sit  during  the  recess  of  Congress,  to 
send  for  persons  and  papers,  to  examine  the  same,  and  to  take  testimony  and  report  at  the  next 
session  of  Congress.” 

Then  a  discussion  followed,  which  was  participated  in  by  the  Senator  from  Ohio,  p<jr. 
Sherman,]  and  others;  and  the  Senate  adopted  this  resolution  with  this  “  monstrous  power” 
in  it  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  sit  during  the  recess  of  Congress ! 

The  resolution  was  again  adopted  at  the  commencement  of  the  Forty-First  Congress.  So 
that. we  have  had  the  resolution  adopted  originally  in  the  Thirty-Ninth  Congress  at  the  in¬ 
stance  of  the  Senator  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  Edmunds  ;]  in  the  Fortieth  Congress  at  the  instance 
of  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  [Mr.  Anthony ;]  and  in  the  Forty-First  Congress  at  the 
instance,  I  think,  in  this  body,  of  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  [Mr.  Patterson,]  and  we 
have  had  various  gentlemen  upon  this  committee.  The  first  joint  Committee  on  Retrench- 
ment  consisted,  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  of  Messrs.  Edmunds,  "Williams,  and  Buckalew,  ap¬ 
pointed  in  1866.  In  1868,  Messrs,  Edmunds,  Williams,  Patterson,  and  Buckalew  consti¬ 
tuted  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate.  In  1870,  Messrs.  Harris,  Patterson,  Schurz, 
and  Thurman  constituted  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate. 

Now,  sir,  I  supposed  that  a  proposition  to  raise  a  committee  that  had  had  an  existence 
ever  since  1866,  with  precisely  the  same  powers  that  I  asked  for  it  in  1867,  would  have  been 
adopted  in  this  body  without  objection.  On  the  7  th  day  of  December,  1871, 1  offered  a  reso¬ 
lution  to  revive  this  Committee  on  Retrenchment,  which  had  expired  with  the  Forty-First 
Congress  on  the  8d  of  March  last.  After  I  offered  the  resolution  the  Senate  immediately  ad¬ 
journed  without  any  action  upon  it. 

On  Monday  the  resolution,  if  I  recollect  aright,  came  up  and  was  considered  to  some  ex¬ 
tent,  but  without  arriving  at  any  conclusion.  On  Tuesday  the  Senate  sat  but  a  few  min¬ 
utes;  and  again,  if  I  recollect  aright,  the  same  thing  was  gone  through  with  on  Wednesday, 
and  the  newspapers  of  the  country  say  that  a  caucus  of  Republican  Senators  was  held  in 
reference  to  this  resolution.  I  wish  the  Senator  from  Indiana  to  consider  what  I  am  saying. 
The  newspapers  of  the  country  say  that  a  party  caucus  of  Republican  Senators  was  called  to 
determine  whether  this  resolution  of  investigation  and  inquiry  to  reduce  the  expenses  of  the 
Government  should  pass  or  not.  Who  gave  this  a  party  turn,  or  sought  to  give  it  a  party 
turn  ?  In  my  judgment,  it  was  not  a  proper  subject  for  party  consideration.  The  very  fact 
that  Republican  Senators  got  together  to  consider  whether  a  resolution  of  inquiry  into  the 
abuses  of  the  Government  should  be  permitted  to  pass  this  body  showed  that  the  meeting 
was  called  for  the  purpose  of  considering  it  in  a  party  point  of  view.  The  whole  country 
has  been  given  to  understand  that  the  Republican  Senators  were  called  together,  for  what? 
For  the  purpose  of  considering  whether  a  resolution  that  had  passed  this  body  for  five  con¬ 
secutive  years  without  objection  should  be  permitted  to  pass  again. 

Mr.  MORTON.  The  Senator  refers  to  newspapers,  and  says  that  they  say  there  was  a 
caucus  for  the  consideration  of  this  question;  an.d  he  further  says  that  it  was  not  a  proper 
subject  to  be  caucused  on.  I  desire  to  ask  him  if  the  newspapers  also  state  who  it  was  that 
nrst  brought  his  resolution  before  a  caucus. 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  I  do  not  know  that  they  do.  I  have  not  attempted  to  speak  of  what 
occurred  in  the  caucus ;  but  when  a  resolution  is  offered  in  the  Senate  for  the  purpose  of  in¬ 
vestigation,  and  any  party  go  into  caucus  to  see  whether  they  cannot  shape  it  in  a  different 
iorm^the  country  will  th;nk,  or,  to  use  the  language  of  the  Senator  from  Indiana,  “impartial 
observers  will  say,  and  it  cannot  be  prevented,”  that  the  caucus  was  called  for  the  purpose 
*f  preventing  the  investigation.  Mr.  President,  I  undertake  to  say  that  the  resolution  was 
aot  a  proper  subject  for  a  caucus  of  any  party  after  it  had  been  offered  in  the  open  Senate. 
It  might  have  been  a  proper  consideration  if  it  had  not  been  here  to  determine  whether 
you  would  bring  in  such  a  proposition,  but  it  was  not  a  proper  subject  for  party  considera¬ 
tion  afterward;  and  the  moment  that  the  Republican  Senators  were  called  together  for  such 
a  purpose,  it  was  manifest  the  country  would  understand  that  there  were  some  party  reasons 

that  required  it.  .  .  _  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,. 

Sir  1  deny  that  the  Republican  party  of  this  conntry  is  to  be  bound  by  any  such  anion, 
and  for  one  I  repudiated  on  the  spot  the  idea  of  being  bound  by  any  such  caucus  I  will 
never  consent  while  I  have  the  honor  of  a  seat  here  that  a  party  caucus,  or  any  other  com- 
bination  or  organization,  shall  prevent  my  bringing  before  the  Senate  for  its  investigation 
matters  that  I  bqlieve  the  public  good  requires  to  be  investigated. 


22 


Sir,  what  followed  ?  The  resolution  then  followed  in  this  body  offered  by  the  Senator 
from  Rhode  Island,  [Mr.  Anthony,]  to  do  what?  To  create  a  Committee  of  Investigation 
and  Retrenchment,  to  cqnsider  such  matters  as  should  be  referred  to  it,  a  committee  with  no 
power  whatever.  It  could  not  move  a  step  until  something  was  referred  to  it. 

I  want  to  remind  Senators  of  what  they  said  when  the  resolution  was  originally  before 
this  body.  They  spy  to-day,  “  Oil,  we  were  for  investigation.”  Did  you  talk  that  way  on  the 
11th,  12th,  aud  13th  of  December?  n 

Mr,  EDMUNDS.  To  whom  do  you  allude? 

Mr.  TRUMBULL.  I  will  tell  you  to  whom  I  allude.  I  allude  to  the  remarks  made  by 
the  Senator  from  New  York,  [Mr.  Conkling.]  In  alluding  to  the  resolution  to  revive  the 

Retrenchment  Committee  he  said: 

“  I  did  not  know  that  we  had  ever  had  a  committee  in  this  body  with  functions  so  broad  and 
absorbing  that  it  would  take  to  itself  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  an  inquiry  like  this.” 

That  was  said  ia  reference  to  a  resolution  to  raise  a  committee  in  the  very  words  in  which 
we  had  adop  ted  it  here  time  and  again.  What  further  did  he  say  ? 

“  But,  Mr.  President,  I  have  another  objection  to  this.  The  general  and  vague  terms  of  which 
I  am  speaking  will  unsettle  in  a  great  degree  the  understandings  and  obligations  now  resting 
upon  the  other  standing  committees.  It  is  proposed  to  employ  this  language,  they  are  to  inquire 
‘  what  are  the  methods  of  procuring  accountability  in  public  officers  or  agents  in  the  care ‘an* 
disbursement  of  public  money  ?  ’  These  powers,  as  to  place  and  time,  are  universal.”  *  *  4 

“  Again,  I  am  indisposed  to  vote  for  language  so  general  in  its  character  as  to  exonerate  othei 
committees  from  the  obligations  resting  upon  them. 

Was  not  this  making  opposition  to  the  resolution  ?  The  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Sherman] 
said 

“The  Senator  from  Illinois  insists  that  this  committee  shall  commence  with  extraordinary, 
powers  not  conferred  upon  any  committee  of  this  body.”  *  *  *  *  “  I  am  amazed  that  such 

powers  should  be  sought  to  be  conferred  in  violation  of  the  ordinary  usages  of  the  Senate  unless 
in  a  special  case  for  special  reasons.” 

Again,  referring  to  the  Hodge  case,  he  said: 

“There  can  be  no  objections  to  having  this  committee  authorized  to  examine  all  his  papers,  all 
his  accounts,  everything  that  would  throw  light  on  his  transactions.  But  would  you  because  it  is 
necessary  in  that  case  to  arm  the  committee  with  this  power,  give  it  a  right  to  go  without  limit, 
without  restraint,  without  definition,  without  accusation,  without  particulars,  all  over  the  United 
States  ?  ” 

That,  is  the  way  the  proposition  to  revive  this  joint  Committee  on  Retrenchment  was  met. 
The  Senator  from  Indiana  [Mr.  Morton]  said  : 

“We  owe  much  to  public  integrity,  and  we  owe  something  to  private  rights.  A  committee  so 
armed,  as  I  before  said,  would  beceme  an  inquisition,  a  tyranny  too  intolerable  to  be  borne  by  a 
free  peeple.” 

Again  he  said  :  . 

“  I  am  not  mistaken  about  the  whole  drift  of  this  debate.  It  has  been  to  show  that  there  is 
corruption  existing  under  this  Administration,  and  gross  corruption.  The  drift  of  this  debate  is 
a  reflection  upon  the  Republican  party.” 

Why  was  it  not  a  reflection  upon  the  Republican  party  two  years  ago?  No  one  then 
thought,  so.  Does  the  Senator  from  Indiana  suppose,  does  the.  Senator  from  New  York  sup,- 
pose,  does  the  Senator  from  Ohio  suppose,  that  they  can  oppose  a  resolution  in  the  very 
words  in  which  it  had  been  adopted  year  after  year,  and  say  that  it  is  a  resolution  that 
“  amazes  ”  them ;  that  it  is  a  resolution,  according  to  the  language  of  the  Senator  from 
Indiana,  which  creates  “  an  inquisition,  a  tyranny  too  intolerable  to  be  borne  by  a  free  peo¬ 
ple;”  that  they  can  oppose  it  now  when  they  voted  for  it  years,  and  have  the  country 
understand  that  they  are  for  a  full  and  fair  investigation?  I  know  they  say  they  are  for 
one.  I  do  not  deny  it;  but  I  say  to  the  Senator  from  Indiana  he  need  not  be  surprised  that 
the  country  cannot  understand  it  in  that  way. 

What  was  the  trouble  about  the  resolution  as  originally  offered?  Oh,  it  proposed  to  raise 
a  joint  select  committee,  and  that  would  not  do !  Well,  sir,  I  was  indifferent  whether  it  was 
a  joint  committee  or  a  standing  committee  of  the  Senate;  but  when  it  was  proposed  to  have 
a  standing  committee  of  the  Senate,  what  sort  of  a  standing  committee  was  proposed?  A 
standing  committee  that  could  not  move  an  inch  until  it  was  ordered  by  the  Senate,  which 
had  no  jurisdiction  of  anything  by  the  express  terms  of  the  resolution  creating  it.  When  I 
f  proposed  to  give  to  this  standing  committee  the  same  power  to  summon  persons  ayd  examine 
papers,  to  inquire  whether  retrenchment  could  not  be  brought  about  in  the  public  service, 
whether  useless  offices  could  npt  be  dispensed  with,  when  I  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  the  fact  that  there  were  in  the  custom-house  at  New  York  numerous  officers  with 
nothing  to  do,  when  we  showed  these  facts  and  asked  that  this  committee  be  clothed  with 
power  to  investigate  them,  we  are  told,  “  Oh,  no,  it  will  not  do ;  ”  the  Senator  from  Ohio 
and  the  Senator  from  Indiana  are  alarmed:  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  going 


23 

to  be  violated ;  the  rights  of  the  citizen  are  to  be  encroached  upon  ;  an  inquisition  is  to  be 
established  1 

When  on  earth  did  those  Senators  wake  up  to  this  alarm  for  the  rights  of  the  citizen  ? 
They  vo^ed  to  grant  these  powers  to  a  committee  two  years  ago.  But  they  say  that  was 
different.  The  committee  to  which  we. voted  to  give  these  powers  was  a  special  committee 
of  both  Houses,  and  not  a  standing  cornmitiee  of  the  Senate.  What  difference  does  that 
make  to  the  rights  of  the  citizen  ?  Will  the  citizen  be  any  the  worse  off  if  his  rights  are 
encroached  upon  by  a  standing  committee  of  the  Senate,  than  he  would  if  they  were 
encroached  upon  by  a  select  committee  of  the  two  Houses?  Is  the  Senator  from  Indiana 
astonished,  or  is  the  Senator  from  Ohio  astonished  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  can¬ 
not  see  the  difference?  Are  they  surprised  that  the  people  cannot  understand  what  differ¬ 
ence  it  makes  whether  a  standing  committee  of  this  body  has  authority  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers,  or  a  select  committee  of  both  Houses  has  that  power?  It  is  the  thing  that  we 
are  after ;  we  want  to  expose  and  correct  abuses  if  they  -  xist.  I  do  not  think  they  should 
be  at  all  surprised  that  the  country  understands  them  to  be  opposed  to  retrenchment  and 
the  correction  of  abuses,  when  they  look  back  at  the  action  of  the  last  few  davs  in  this  body. 

When  it  is  proposed  to  raise  a  standing  committee  of  the  Senate,  and  I  offer  as  an  amend¬ 
ment  the  proposition  that  it  shall  have  authority  to  make  these  inquiries,  to  example  for 
abuses,  to  ascertain  whether  the  patronage  of  the  country  is  used  for  mere  partisan  purposes, 
ind  not  for  the  public  good,  and  that  the  committee  shall  have  power  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers,  how  am  I  met?  “  Oh,  it  will  not  do  to  give  that  power  to  a  standing  committee 
of  the  Senate;  that  is  monstrous.”  First,  Senators  go  to  work  to  get  rid  of  the  joint  com¬ 
mittee  of  both  Houses,  and  propose  to  raise  a  standing  committee  of  the  Senate  without 
giving  it  flay  powers  ;  and  when  it  is  proposed  to  give  it  powers,  “  Oh,  you  must  not  do  that, 
because  it  would  go  into  the  rules  of  the  Senate  that  a  standing  committee  wa9  vested  with 
certain  powers,  and  that  will  never  do!  ”  How  could  the  Senator  from  Indiana  expect  an}7- 
thing  else  but  that,  to  use  his  language,  “  impartial  observers  ”  would  say  that  these  were 
met  e  formalities,  technicalities,  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  investigation  which  it  was  sought 
to  make  ? 

Well,  Mr.  President,  the  proposition  to  amend  the  resolution  raising  a  standing  committee 
of  the  Senate  by  vesting  it  with  the  powers  that  had  been  given  to  the  prior  Committee  on 
Retrenchment  was  voted  down.  Then  it  was  said,  “Oh,  you  have  got  civil  service  in  this 
amendment,  and  that  subject  has  already  been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.” 
I  said  to  Senators,  “Let  us  take  civil  service  out  of  the  amendment,  except  that  part  of  twe 
provision  which  relates  to  the  use  of  patronage  for  partisan  purposes.”  Net  satisfied  with 
that,  the  newspapers  say  another  caucus  was  called,  and  another  resolution  is  brought  into 
the  Senate  naming  the  members  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  nothing  to  say  in  regard  to  my  associates  who  are  to  be  placed  upon 
the  committee.  The  chairman  of  the  committee,  the  honorable  Senator  from  Connecticut, 
[Mr.  Buckingham]  is  a  gentleman  of  the  highest  character,  one  of  the  purest  men  in  public 
life  in  this  country,  one  in  whom  I  have  the  utmost  confidence,  who  through  a  long  life  has 
been  noted  for  his  integrity,  his  uprightness,  and  his  virtues  in  every  walk  of  life,  and  he  is 
my  personal  friend.  I  have  no  imputation  to  cast  upon  the  committee  as  individual  Senators. 
I  would  have  no  right  to  make  imputations.  In  my  heart  I  have  no  feelings  of  unkindnesa 
against  one  of  them.  But,  in  the  language  again  of  the  Senator  from  Indiana,  “impartial 
observers”  will  ask,  how  did  this  committee  happen  to  be  made  up  as  it  is? 

Now,  sir,  we  have  arrived  at  the  last  step  where  it  is  proposed  to  form  this  committee 
after  having  voted  down  or  laid  on  the  table  the  various  propositions  to  give  it  those  powers 
without  which  it  can  be  of  but  little  service.  I  have  struggled  here  day  after  day.  and  until 
I  fear  I  have  wearied  the  Senate  and  made  myself  obnoxious  in  trying  to  get  a  direct  vote 
to  see  whether  the  Senate  was  disposed' to  vest  this  committee  with  powers  that  would  make 
rt  efficient.  Why,  sir,  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  pure  as  he  is,  and  opposed  to  every 
sort  of  iniquity  in  public  or  private  life,  can  do  nothing  under  this  resolution  unless  you  give 
him  some  power  under  which  he  can  act.  And  now  when  it  is  proposed  to  give  him  this 
power,  we  are  told,  “  Oh,  no,  no  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  no  power  to  inquire 
whether  the  patronage  of  the  Government  is  used  for  partisan  purposes, no  power  to  inquire 
whether  out  in  Kentucky  subordinate  officers  have  had  deducted  nearly  half  their  monthly 
pay  on  assessments  made  by  political  committees.”  Sir,  I  want  this  committee  clothed  with 
authority  to  go  and  make  all  these  inquiries.  It  is  accidental  that  1  happen  to  know  of  this 
Kentucky  case.  It  is  accidental  that  1  learned  of  the  case  in  Vermont  in  reference  to  which 
I  handed  a  letter  to  the  Senator  from  Vermont. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  think  it  strange  that  the  intelligent  people  of  this  country 
should  have  supposed  that  there  was  something  in  the  way  of  investigation ;  but  before 
taking  my6eat  I  desire  to  clear  the  skirts  of  the  Republican  party  from  any  such  imputation. 
I  deny  that  thirty-four  Senators  in  this  body  have  a  right  to  speak  for  the  Republican  party 
of  this  nation.  They  may  speak  for  themselves,  but  they  cannot  bind  the  Republican  party 
of  my  State,  nor  of  the  other  States  of  this  Union  to  any  such  proposition  as  will  throw  ob¬ 
stacles — whether  designed  or  not,  the  people  will  understand  them  to  be  obstacles — in  the 


24 


way  of  investigation.  The  people  of  this  country,  as  I  said,  do  not  care  whether  your  ih- 
vestigations  are  by  a  joint  select,  committee  of  the  two  Houses  or  by  a  standing  committee  of 
one  House  They  care  not  whether  the  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  is  exercised  by 
a  joint  committee  or  by  a  standing  committee. 

And,  lest  I  forget  it,  Mr.  President,  let  me  say  right  here  that  this  is  a  false  alarm  that  is 
raised  lest  the  rights  of  the  citizen  should  be  enroached  upon  if  the  committee  is  vested  with 
power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers.  This  committee  ha3  been  treated  as  if  it  was  to  ex¬ 
amine  into  the  private  affairs  of  citizens  throughout  the  country.  It  is  no  such  thing.  It  is 
a  committee,  Vested,  if  my  amendment  should  be  adopted,  with  power  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers  in  preference  to  what?  In  reference  to  the  expenditures  in  all  branches  of  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  and  to  inquire  what  offices  ought  to  be  abolished.  Is  there 
any  objection  to  clothing  a  committee  with  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  to  make 
euch  inquiries,  to  know  what  offices  ought  to  be  abolished?  Does  that  authorize  the  com¬ 
mittee  to  summon  before  it  the  citizens  of  the  country  disconnected  with  office,  and  examine 
their  private  papers  as  to  private  matters?  Not  at  all.  It  authorizes  a  committee  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  to  inquire  into  public  matters,  and  that  is  a  just  authority  be¬ 
longing  to  a  committee  of  this  body. 

My  proposition  is  to  vest  the  committee  with  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  so  a3 
to  inquire  into  the  methods  of  procuring  accountability  in  public  officers  or  agents.  Is  that 
going  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  citizens?  It  is  in  reference  to  public  employment, 
in  reference  to  public  money,  in  reference  to  the  collection,  the  care,  and  the  disbursement 
of  public  funds,  in  reference  to  the  official  conduct  of  men  in  office,  that  we  propose  to  inquire ; 
and  am  I  to  be  told  that  it  is  a  dangerous  power  for  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  or  one  of 
its  branches  to  inquire  into  thepublie  service  by  sending  for  persons  and  sending  for  papers 
whenever  they  deem  it  necessary  ?  So,  sir,  you  see  that  this  is  no  unusual  power ;  it  is  no 
new  resolution. 

I  have  offered  as  an  amendment  to  the  pending  proposition  the  resolution  substantially  as 
I  offered  it  originally.  I  am  met  with  a  proposition  to  strike  out  its  vital  parts,  to  deny  the 
committee  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  to  deny  the  commitee  power  to  inquire 
into  the  propriety  of  withdrawing  the  public  service  from  being  used  as  au  instrument  of 
political  or  party  patronage.  Sir,  they  are  the  vital  parts  of  this  resolution.  I  show  you 
instances  of  the  abuse  of  public  patronage,  and  I  wish  this  committee  to  have  authority  to 
inquire  into  it  that  we  may  have  a  purer  public  service,  a  higher  standard  of  political 
morals,  and  greater  economy  in  the  management  of  public  affairs.  Why  this  i3  objected  to, 
I  cannot  see.  I  see  these  technical  objections  that  are  made,  and  I  am  not  surprised  that 
the  country  regards  them  as  technical.  But,  air,  I  deny  that  the  Republican  party  of  this 
country  or  the  Administration  of  the  Government  is  opposed  to  investigation,  is  opposed  to 
economy,  is  opposed  to  an  inquiry  as  to  how  moneys  are  collected  and  disdursed. 

It  was  in  consequence  of  the  abuses  of  the  Government  and  its  encroachments  upon 
human  liberty  that  the  Republican  party  was  formed.  It  must  not  be  false  to  its  origin, 
and.  sir,  my  Republicanism  is  not  to  be  measured  by  the  standard  that  is  attempted  to  be 
set  up  here  in  this  Senate  Chamber.  I  repudiate  it.  I  deny  the  authority  of  the  Senator 
from  Indiana  or  any  other  Senator,  or  forty  Senators,  to  determine  for  me  what  true  Repub¬ 
licanism  is.  The  action  that  has  been  taken  in  this  body  is  at  war  with  the  genuine  princi¬ 
ples  of  the  party  as  enunciated  from  the  beginning.  I  am  willing  that  my  action  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  this  matter  shall  go  to  the  country,  and  let  those  who  vote  down  the  proposition 
they  sustained  for  years  explain  the  reason  of  their  action,  if  they  can,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  people  they  represent. 

After  further  debate,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Anthony  to  amend  the  motion  of  Mr.  Trumbull 
by  striking  out  all  after  the  word  “  curtailed”  was  adopted  by  the  following  vote: 

YEAS — Messrs.  Ames,  Anthony,  Boreman,  Buckingham,  Cameron,  Carpenter,  Chandler, 
Clavton,  ConkVing,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Edmunds,  Ferry  of  Michigan,  Flanigan,  Frelinghuysen, 
Gilbert,  Hamlin,  Hitchcock,  Howe,  Morton,  Osborn,  Pomeroy,  Pool,  Pratt,  Sawyer,  Spencer, 
Stewart,  Wilson,  and  Windom — 29. 

NAYS — Messrs.  Bayard,  Casserly,  Cooper,  Davis  of  Kentucky,  Fenton,  Hamilton  of  Maryland, 
Kelly,  Logan,  Patterson,  Saulsberry,  Schurz,  Stevenson,  Stockton,  Sumner,  Thurman,  Tipton, 
Trumbull,  and  Vickers — 18, 

Subsequently,  on  the  same  d$y,  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Trumbull  was  amended 
by  adding  thereto  the  following : 

And  that  the  said  committee  be  authorized  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  during  the  present 
session  of  the  Senate,  and  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise,  and  also  to  appoint  a  clerk. 

The  amendment,  as  amended,  was  then  adopted,  and  the  resolution,  as  amended,  was 
agreed  to. 


\ 


